The evaluation fieldwork comprised the excavation of 209no. trenches, each measuring 50m long by 2m wide, in the locations shown in Figure 2. Each field or land parcel/ area was given a unique identifying code, as also shown on Figure 2. The trenches were located to test anomalies identified through geophysical survey and LIDAR data, as well as apparently blank areas adjacent to anomalies of likely archaeological origin, with the intention of establishing the reliability of the geophysical survey results and confirming the presence/ absence of significant or complex archaeological remains. Between September and December 2022, Cotswold Archaeology carried out a programme of trial trenching of land within the surrounding environs of Essendine, Rutland, extending across the border into the South Kesteven administrative area of Lincolnshire. A total of 209 trenches were excavated, largely targeting anomalies identified by a preceding geophysical survey. The main focal areas of archaeological activity identified by the trenching were accurately predicted by the geophysical survey, particularly in field parcels M6, M10, and PF7. Archaeologically relatively quiet or blank areas indicated by the geophysical survey also were confirmed as such by the results of the trial trenching. However, not all areas predicted by the geophysical survey to contain archaeological remains did so; for example, trenches 33 - 39, in field parcel M10, contained only a single archaeological feature despite having been targeted at a cluster of anomalies morphologically suggestive of a trackway, enclosures and a possible ring ditch. Similarly, trenches 136, 137 and 138 in land parcel PF8 and trenches 183 - 188 in land parcel N8 also contained no archaeological remains despite the presence of morphologically suggestive geophysical anomalies. In respect of this, across the majority of the trenching areas high levels of modern plough truncation, plough scaring and evidence for wheel rutting were observed. In field parcel M6 in particular, quantities of artefactual material were noted in the ploughsoil in the vicinity of the trenches, suggesting plough erosion of the underlying remains was actively occurring. Particularly heavy plough scarring was also noted across land parcels P1 and M11. Consequently, it is conjectured that some of the anomalies identified by the geophysical survey, where not clearly related to geological variations etc, may be the result of ploughedout archaeological features surviving as soil bands in the agricultural plough soil. The remains encountered in the trenches were shown to be predominantly Iron Age and Roman in date, with little evidence for activity pre- or post-dating these periods being identified. The principal exception to this was a complex of curvilinear ditches and associated features in field parcel M10 (trenches 40, 42 and 45), where a double ring ditch identified by the geophysical survey and targeted by trench 42, appears to be Late Neolithic/ Early Bronze Age in date. Thought on morphological grounds to be a possible burial mound, the absence of any burial pit within the central area of the inner ditch, coupled with evidence for the recutting of both the inner and outer ditch and the presence of pottery and animal bone in the ditches and nearby (seemingly associated) features imply a non-funerary function for the enclosure. In field parcel M6, an area of Late Iron Age and Early Roman activity was encountered, including a possible stone surface and large quantities of artefacts. The animal bone recovered from this area was dominated by the remains of cattle, almost to the exclusion of other species, consisting exclusively of meat-poor skeletal elements, specifically fragments of the mandible and lower limbs.
Anna Wolf (Sun,) studied this question.